"NRA Assault" would be a series of games focused around fighting the NRA. One would be a RTS featuring two sides, the NRA vs vigilante gun control proponents. The other game would be a 3-D shooter in which the object is to assasinate key figures in the NRA. Players would have in their arsenal every weapon previously banned under the Assault Weapons Control Act.

I'm not claiming ownership of this idea -- consider it released to the public domain -- but I'd like to see it implemented.

All of us would like to see ideas that we have implemented. Moreover probably most of the posters on the creative side have suggested ideas or given ideas as input into other's projects. Pretty much all of them have been thrown into the "Public Domain" as such.

In the case of your ideas whilst they can conceivably be made into games and even include the irony of gun control proponents using illegal weaponry to fight the NRA, I have to ask why you would choose this particular time and content material given recent tragic events. Which leads me to the surmise that this is less about the story idea and more about making a political or emotional statement. By all means, you have the right to suggest any idea persay, but do you truly consider that suggesting these types of games given recent events is truly a path to healing?

Too many (smaller) games have been made that profit on the abuse of a celebrity or a "just cause" and in an environment where video games do at times suffer intense criticism over subject matters relating to violence, abuse and other issues. I would have much preferred an idea suggested by you that sought to create a game that actually created a socially responsible solution (that was fun to play) to the existing real life differences contained in a gun control debate.

I thank you for your idea and always welcome new ideas, but on a personal level I truly don't wish to see it implemented, on the grounds of my own morality and ethics. My heart goes out to those affected by the recent events but I truly do not see creating a game such as this as being a valid "cause celebre".

Yeah I guess not. I guess this series would just make the NRA grab onto their guns even tighter. The natural response of NRA affiliated persons to violence is to load their guns, after all. I thought it might make them stop and think, but I guess I misjudged their rationale for wanting guns. It's not just to defend against crazies... it's to defend against their critics as well.

Sounds too political to ever be viable save as propaganda game, and those are um, kinda 'niche'.

Why? Who says it can't sell?

Of course, the person with the idea has to care about the game idea enough to actually make it, and finish it. Nobody's gonna do it for them. It's good to explore whether one is just contemplating a "debating outburst," or one has the energy, enthusiasm, and depth of subject to make an entire game out of it.

I have to ask why you would choose this particular time and content material given recent tragic events.

Why not? We have a First Amendment in the USA for a reason. Speech is often intended to offend somebody, to shake up their thinking. There's always going to be some bad / inappropriate time according to someone's point of view. Such points of view are irrelevant. In the USA we are free to speak if we want to. We just have to accept the consequences of our speech, that people may say bad things about us. On the other hand from a promotion standpoint, some people believe there's no such thing as bad publicity.

My own question about recent events in Colorado, is why in such a gun friendly state, with its "Make My Day" law and so forth, didn't anybody in the theater shoot back? I'm guessing that very few people in urban areas actually carry guns.

I say it can’t sell because games so blatantly political generally don’t. Retailers are going to stay away, which will counteract any free publicity it will get from being controversial. The NRA especially has a very competent legal/publicity organization that will pretty much guarantee that.

I think you could make an effective propaganda game around the gun control debate, but I don’t think the game ideas as originally presented are very effective. I couldn’t even understand whether they were pro-gun control or anti-gun control.

For example, a pro-gun control game could (satirically) have the player as a criminal trading in guns to illustrate how having it easy to obtain legal firearms translates into criminals with guns. In contrast, an anti-control game could have a gun safety tutorial, gun-range training, and a series of simulated situations where the player has a gun in a life threatening situations and saves the day by shooting a criminal.

My view is that satire and political debate is best done with a cool head. Done in a kneejerk fashion it could just confuse, offend and alienate. What's the point if it pushes people to your opposition's side? The first amendment thing is irrelevant to me. I don't come from the US, we have no first amendment. Yes, I think that free speech is good, but within limits. If someone like the Westboro Baptist Church protested at a family member's funeral, I'd want the police to kick them out.

I vaguely recall some games that made good political points, e.g. an educational game on gerrymandering in elections, some game about killing terrorists spreading terrorism, etc. I don't think the genre is a money spinner, but by all means make something. Just keep it small and keep your goals in mind. Often timeliness is of paramount important. A AAA game about a political situation that has months/years ago moved out of public awareness may not achieve much.

Seems kind of silly to make a game about gun violence when presumably your opposition to the NRA would be rooted in your belief that their existence contributes to actual gun violence, don't you think? If you want to criticize or undermine their stance there are more mature ways to do it.

Personally I'm very much against additional gun controls beyond what we already have, because I believe that every citizen in good standing (meaning, hasn't proven they shouldn't be trusted with a weapon) should have the ultimate right to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property, using effective means. Law enforcement is great and all, my younger brother is a cop, but they can't always be counted upon to respond quickly enough, or even at all in the case of a widespread or long-lasting emergency situation. In short, by opting out of the ability to protect your own interests, you opt in to the possibility that you might find yourself in a situation where no one can or will protect those interests for you. In the event of a home-invasion, riot, mass panic, Red Dawn, or zombie apocalypse, I'd certainly want to be able to defend myself.

With that, I'll step down from my soap-box. I just wanted to point out that anti-control folks are not all redneck militiamen or irresponsible fools who think it's cool to own a grand-fathered automatic weapon for show. Most anti-control folks are rational people making a very rational decision, even if the scenarios they might cite in justifying their stance might seem only a distant possibility.

Yeah I guess not. I guess this series would just make the NRA grab onto their guns even tighter. The natural response of NRA affiliated persons to violence is to load their guns, after all. I thought it might make them stop and think, but I guess I misjudged their rationale for wanting guns. It's not just to defend against crazies... it's to defend against their critics as well.

I'm a member of the NRA. I own three guns: a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun. I hunt elk, when I get lucky enough to draw a tag and have the time to do so. I have never had the inclination, desire, or even random thought to draw a weapon on another human being. I could conceivably do so in defense of self or family, but such a thing would not be done lightly, if at all. I have far too much respect for the potential destructive power of firearms, and the necessity of using them responsibly. But, yeah, all of us NRA members are crazies. Just a bunch of dumb rednecks, just itching for an excuse to shoot somebody. You, sir, seem to have fallen victim to propaganda, and I truly feel sorry for your lack of critical thinking skills or basic ability to reason for yourself. Sorry you're dumb, bro. Maybe you'll get better.

I suppose this is off-topic if we can't bring it back to the design of a game. So I'll make a half-hearted effort.

The US has a high per capita gun death rate for a first world country

The USA is a strongly Capitalist, somewhat free market country with a large stratification between rich and poor, and a big population. If you don't take those factors into account in your game, I don't think you're going to do the subject justice. One might also wish to consider the historical circumstances of any given country, such as being a rebellious colony that then expanded into a sparsely populated land mass, and also being some semblance of a democracy from the get-go. I think gun ownership issues in the USSR and modern day Russia would probably turn out somewhat different. Ready to write CivGun?

Guns have a higher collateral damage rate than most peacetime weapons

Some do not, in specific combat environments. For instance, the shotgun is the ideal home defense weapon, because it will kill lots of stuff at close quarters with not as much need to aim. It won't penetrate solid walls, killing people you didn't intend to. The sound of the shotgun being loaded is terrifying to an intruder and may cause them to flee before a shot needs to be fired. Any accurate game would need to feature a variety of weapons and defense environments. For instance, a chain gun isn't going to help you in circumstances short of a Steven Segal home defense film.

Compared to weapons such as knives, tasers, etc, the death rate per incident is high

Which from a legal defense standpoint is a good thing. The truth is, if your assailant is dead, and you didn't obviously shoot them in the back or off your property or stand over them emptying an entire clip execution-style into them, then it's your word against his and he's dead. Some countries like the USA are "gun cultures" where juries can be expected to understand and be sympathetic to lethal force via firearm. Such juries think you just pull a trigger, the assailant dies, there isn't a lot of thinking and second guessing about it. In contrast, knives and bare handed martial arts defenses are constantly questioned on a blow-by-blow basis, like everyone fighting for their life is in a Bruce Lee movie. Other cultures are knife or stick cultures, often due to British or other colonial experience, and are not at all sympathetic to the use of guns. Yet they may culturally expect a brutal chopping to be ok, especially say in Indonesia where one can be killed merely for slapping a hat off another man's head. From a game design standpoint again YMMV according to the weapon and the geographic culture.

There are relatively few positive uses for guns in an urban environment (e.g. nothing to hunt)

The most glaring exception being self-defense, especially in the home. Again, are you going to make a sim, or an interactive political tract?

The psychological effects of guns can cause quick escalation of arguments

Or de-escalation, case may be. Guns are excellent standoff weapons, as they clearly demonstrate the potential of lethal force. Knives are pretty good standoff weapons, they can keep some hotheaded confrontations from going any further. Sticks are not so good, at least in the USA. Whether a given weapon and communication style works for ending a confrontation, would depend on a lot of situational factors and would be a pretty complex roleplay. If you want to actually sell a game like this, it might be good to target it at law enforcement, the military, and private security companies - people who would actually pay big bucks for serious depth of sim.

@bvanevery: Fair call for the reminder that this isn't the Lounge. I don't entirely agree, but I'll do my bit to stop polluting this part of the forum.

I suppose this is off-topic if we can't bring it back to the design of a game. So I'll make a half-hearted effort.

Ready to write CivGun?

For instance, a chain gun isn't going to help you in circumstances short of a Steven Segal home defense film.

From a game design standpoint again YMMV according to the weapon and the geographic culture.

Again, are you going to make a sim, or an interactive political tract?

If you want to actually sell a game like this, it might be good to target it at law enforcement, the military, and private security companies - people who would actually pay big bucks for serious depth of sim.

Law enforcement is great and all, my younger brother is a cop, but they can't always be counted upon to respond quickly enough, or even at all in the case of a widespread or long-lasting emergency situation.

What we need is Batman

My personal opinion on all of this: Guns are stupid, I like swords better